Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!ames!elroy!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!crimee.ics.uci.edu!schmidt
From: schmidt@crimee.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: C++ parsing questions
Message-ID: <13718@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 9 May 89 02:43:13 GMT
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: Doug Schmidt <schmidt@crimee.ics.uci.edu>
Organization: University of California at Irvine: ICS Dept.
Lines: 44

Since people seem in the mood to disambiguate obscure C++ language
design points I have a quick question about the following piece of
code from page 313 in the 1988 USENIX C++ Conference Proceedings.

----------------------------------------
class X
{
public:
  X ();
  X (X& x, int X::*p);
  operator int X::*();
protected:
  int i;
  double d;
};        

f ()
{
  X a;
  int X::* pi_X = a;

  X b = X (a, pi_X);
  X *px = new X (a, b);
  // stuff omitted...        

  a.*pi_X = *px.*b // evaluated as ((*px).*)b.operator int X::*()
}
----------------------------------------

This last line of code does not make any sense to me, especially since
the precedence of the new operators .* and ->* (shown on page 311) are
HIGHER than * (i.e., the dereference operator).

Was this just a typo in the article?  Does C++ 2.0 really evaluate
things this way?!?!

thanks,

        Doug
--
On a clear day, under blue skies, there is no need to seek.
And asking about Buddha                +------------------------+
Is like proclaiming innocence,         | schmidt@ics.uci.edu    |
With loot in your pocket.              | office: (714) 856-4043 |